Is This the Correct Formula for the Reaction of SO2 with Humid Air?

AI Thread Summary
The reaction of sulfur dioxide (SO2) with humid air produces sulfur trioxide (SO3) and involves water (H2O). The balanced equation presented is 2 SO2 + O2 + 2 H2O(g) --> 2 SO3 + 2 H2O(g). Water appears on both sides of the equation, which means it can be considered a catalyst and does not participate in the reaction. Therefore, it is recommended to write H2O above the arrow to indicate its role. This clarification helps in understanding the chemical equilibrium of the reaction.
MarcMTL
Messages
25
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Sulfur dioxide reacts with humid air to produce Sulfure trioxide. Find the chemical equilibirum.

Homework Equations




The Attempt at a Solution



I wrote out that:

SO2 + O2 + H2O(g) --> SO3 + H2O(g)

And balanced, I obtain:

2 SO2 + O2 + 2 H2O(g) --> 2 SO3 + 2 H2O(g)

Is this the correct formula for the reaction of SO2 with humid air?
I seem to find that the H20 doesn't react at all, it is basically endups as H2O at the end of the reaction.

Thanks for letting me know if I'm on the right track.

Marc
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If water is present on both sides of the equation in identical quantities, it cancels out. If its presence is necessary for the reaction, it can be treated as a catalyst, so you should write H2O above the arrow.

--
 
Thread 'Confusion regarding a chemical kinetics problem'
TL;DR Summary: cannot find out error in solution proposed. [![question with rate laws][1]][1] Now the rate law for the reaction (i.e reaction rate) can be written as: $$ R= k[N_2O_5] $$ my main question is, WHAT is this reaction equal to? what I mean here is, whether $$k[N_2O_5]= -d[N_2O_5]/dt$$ or is it $$k[N_2O_5]= -1/2 \frac{d}{dt} [N_2O_5] $$ ? The latter seems to be more apt, as the reaction rate must be -1/2 (disappearance rate of N2O5), which adheres to the stoichiometry of the...
I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...
Back
Top